Trump indicted in classified documents case in Florida

a reply to: Xtrozero

Did you hear? they are dropping the case in Fl, but the mission was still accomplished.

Are you guys just making stuff up now in hopes that it becomes true? There's a hearing scheduled for this week to discuss the date of the trial.

It is funny they are willing to spend years and millions of dollars to get Trump on anything, making crap up along the way too and we see nothing with Biden who has actually done the things they accuse Trump of.

Last time I checked the was a special counsel investigating Biden's handling of classified materials.

a reply to: Threadbare

This has been discussed ad nauseam.

The same people who think Trump is above the law, as he even admit he is guilty of the charges, also want Biden to be prosecuted based on flimsy evidence and mostly hearsay, and want Hillary "locked up" over the email debacle.

No sane person can say Trump is being prosecuted because of a witch hunt, or the court is rigged against him. The reality is he got the one judge, Aileen Cannon, who has been on his side since Trump appointed her to the position and over stepped her authority already preventing the FBI from investigating the seized files. She of course was rebuked for her actions.

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: JinMI
Yay for corrupt govt!


Yay for unequal application of law!

Yay for the ignorant who don't see how this can be used on....you!

Boo for posts that don't back up any of their absurd claims!

There are multiple posts in this thread describing and linking to articles about the mountain of evidence against Trump in this case, as well as explaining what laws he is alleged to have broken, yet all you have are nay-saying comments without any substance. Funny that.

Confirmation bias from entities that bank on it you mean?

Do tell.

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: jrod



"I know the MAGA cult will quickly say Hillary is guilty of all the same stuff and worse which is simply not the case."


Not a Maga cultist. You are dead wrong. I could easily prove you wrong but what would be the point. It won't change your mind.

You could easily prove @jrod wrong, but what's the point, huh? In other words, you got nothing. Which is all MAGA cultists ever have. And at this point, anyone still support Trump is clearly a Trump/MAGA cultist. There is no other way to explain their denial of facts in the documents case against him.

Again, I am not a MAGA cultist by any stretch of the imagination. Giving some one a label and using that label to dismiss anything they say is really growing old on ATS.


1. Hillary Clinton had classified TS/SCI SAP emails on an unclassified server.
2. She and her aides used off the shelf commercial blackberrys.
3. The email account on her unclassified server was tethered to her blackberry.
4. Because of #3, her email server was open to any foreign adversary as soon as she set foot in what ever country.
5. 33,000 deleted emails.
6. People at the State Department were taking information off the classified servers and sending it to her unclassified server because she willfully refused to use an official state department government email.
7. Jame Comey said she was used extreme carelessness in regards to handling off classified information.
8. Extreme carelessness is exactly the same as gross negligence. Except gross negligence is used in 793f

www.law.cornell.edu...

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

dbl post

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: JinMI
Yay for corrupt govt!


Yay for unequal application of law!

Yay for the ignorant who don't see how this can be used on....you!

Boo for posts that don't back up any of their absurd claims!

There are multiple posts in this thread describing and linking to articles about the mountain of evidence against Trump in this case, as well as explaining what laws he is alleged to have broken, yet all you have are nay-saying comments without any substance. Funny that.

Confirmation bias from entities that bank on it you mean?

Do tell.

More of the same from you. Big surprise there.

A variety of sources. I'm not going to bother to go into detail on them. If you choose to keep your head in the sand or wherever you keep it, and retain your own political biases at the expense of the facts, that's on you. You evidently don't think the unsealed indictment means anything either. It's easy to stay in denial mode if you don't bother to look outside of your own biased sources.

When I respond to a thread, I do bother to look at the sources provided by those that disagree with me. I figure I owe it to myself as well as the poster.

a reply to: RickinVa

Here's some info on the emails in question:

After a years-long FBI investigation, it was determined that Clinton's server did not contain any information or emails that were clearly marked classified.[1] Federal agencies did, however, retrospectively determine that 100 emails contained information that should have been deemed classified at the time they were sent, including 65 emails deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret". An additional 2,093 emails were retroactively designated confidential by the State Department.

Some experts, officials, and members of Congress contended that Clinton's use of a private email system and a private server violated federal law, specifically 18 U.S. Code § 1924, regarding the unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or materials, as well as State Department protocols and procedures, and regulations governing recordkeeping. Clinton claimed that her use complied with federal laws and State Department regulations, and that former secretaries of state had also maintained personal email accounts (however Clinton was the only secretary of state to use a private server).[6] News reports by NBC and CNN indicated that the emails discussed "innocuous" matters that were already public knowledge.

The controversy was a major point of discussion and contention during the 2016 presidential election, in which Clinton was the Democratic nominee. In May, the State Department's Office of the Inspector General released a report about the State Department's email practices, including Clinton's. In July, FBI director James Comey announced that the FBI investigation had concluded that Clinton had been "extremely careless" but recommended that no charges be filed because Clinton did not act with criminal intent, the historical standard for pursuing prosecution.

Hillary Clinton email controversy

I'm not defending her IT security and her team's procedures. The FBI decided that her failings didn't meet the criteria for charges. Was that a correct or incorrect decision? I honestly don't know, but can imagine that the FBI thought the chances of getting convictions were small. Comey did her no favor, however, with his October surprise of publicly announcing that the investigation had started up again when additional emails were found.

I'm not a HRC fan, so I am not defending her. How come Mr. Lock Her Up! didn't have his DOJ investigate her as he had promised his supporters? For that matter, how come he didn't have his DOJ and FBI investigate the Bidens more when they had this informer's affidavit in June, 2020?

The law you cite pertains to defense information. Do you have any evidence that anything in her server's emails involved defense information? In the wikipedia excerpt I provided, another law is mentioned, which she or her team did likely violate, but the FBI found no evidence of criminal evidence, so they didn't prosecute. However, a number of people were cited for violations, which could result in disciplinary action or affect their chance of promotion or gaining other government employment.

38 people cited for violations in Clinton email probe

The State Department has completed its internal investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of private email and found violations by 38 people, some of whom may face disciplinary action.

The investigation, launched more than three years ago, determined that those 38 people were “culpable” in 91 cases of sending classified information that ended up in Clinton’s personal email, according to a letter sent to Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley this week and released Friday. The 38 are current and former State Department officials but were not identified.

Although the report identified violations, it said investigators had found “no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.” However, it also made clear that Clinton’s use of the private email had increased the vulnerability of classified information.

Know who else, as president, used an insecure cell phone? Take a wild guess:

President Donald Trump uses a White House cellphone that isn’t equipped with sophisticated security features designed to shield his communications, according to two senior administration officials — a departure from the practice of his predecessors that potentially exposes him to hacking or surveillance.

The president, who relies on cellphones to reach his friends and millions of Twitter followers, has rebuffed staff efforts to strengthen security around his phone use, according to the administration officials.

The president uses at least two iPhones, according to one of the officials. The phones — one capable only of making calls, the other equipped only with the Twitter app and preloaded with a handful of news sites — are issued by White House Information Technology and the White House Communications Agency, an office staffed by military personnel that oversees White House telecommunications.

While aides have urged the president to swap out the Twitter phone on a monthly basis, Trump has resisted their entreaties, telling them it was “too inconvenient,” the same administration official said.

The president has gone as long as five months without having the phone checked by security experts. It is unclear how often Trump’s call-capable phones, which are essentially used as burner phones, are swapped out.

President Barack Obama handed over his White House phones every 30 days to be examined by telecommunications staffers for hacking and other suspicious activity, according to an Obama administration official.

Trump’s call-capable cellphone has a camera and microphone, unlike the White House-issued cellphones used by Obama. Keeping those components creates a risk that hackers could use them to access the phone and monitor the president’s movements.

‘Too inconvenient’: Trump goes rogue on phone security

In the Mar-a-Lago case Trump has shown a willful, criminal intent of keeping and hiding records, and lying to the feds and even to his own lawyers. However, the DOJ is using the Espionage Act, and not even bothering to charge him with the law you cited. The Feds spent a long time playing nice with Trump; if he had just given the records back when asked for them, we wouldn't be suffering legal consequences now. HRC sat before congress and answered questions for 8 hours, and cooperated with investigators. The same can't be said of Trump. And as far as I know, none of the HRC emails involved nuclear secrets or contingency war plans.

a reply to: RickinVa
Hillary cooperated and testified. As mentioned above, there was no evidence of her using a private server or personal emails to discuss sensitive DoD information. She did not share confidential information like classified DoD plans, images, ect. with those with no business seeing them, but guess who did?

Trump obstructed, obfuscated, and refused to testify. There is no doubt he us guilty as he admits to what he did.

If you think Hillary should be prosecuted, then you have to believe Trump should be as well as what he did is far more serious, reckless and demonstrates a complete lack of respect for the laws regarding handling classified material, a law he rallied to increase the penalty because he thought it would be used against Hillary.

a reply to: jrod

Trump destroyed subpoenaed evidence? Got a link?

a reply to: jrod

"there was no evidence of her using a private server or personal emails to discuss sensitive DoD information."


This took 5 seconds to find.


www.cbsnews.com...

The server Clinton used as secretary of state contained "several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the [intelligence community] element to be at the CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, and TOP SECRET/SAP levels," the inspector general, Charles McCullough, wrote in the letter, which was first reported by Fox News. "SAP" stands for special access programs, which carry a classification level higher than top secret.

www.nytimes.com...

30,000 initially turned over by Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers, deemed work-related, returned to the State Department in December 2014.
▪ 8 chains included “top secret” information
▪ 36 chains included “secret” information
▪ 8 chains included “confidential” information, the lowest level of classification
▪ 2,000 emails have since been classified “confidential” ▪ The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said that a very small number of emails had classified markings when they were sent.

"there was no evidence of her using a private server or personal emails to discuss sensitive DoD information." is a lie.

originally posted by: MrInquisitive
The FBI decided that her failings didn't meet the criteria for charges.

This is kind of the point here in she was working outside of official channels, which is bad all by itself. Add in her server was unsecured with many classified documents on it and then the big coverup, so how is that seen as "FBI found no evidence of criminal evidence"? It's because Comey said so. We also have Biden with decades of classified in his garage stuffed in boxes...lol

The thing with Trump was the National Archive knew he had documents, and they were secured like not on some open server. We all know Trump was playing tit-for-tat with the National Archive, but kind of a long way from the Espionage Act. The reason they are using the Espionage Act is that they can't get him on the classified part since he was president. They could for both Hillary and Biden as they were not the President. If anything, Hillary operating outside of official channels is closer to the Espionage Act than Trump just having classified locked away. Also, Hillary lied during her 8 hours, but the FBI made sure she wasn't under oath at the time...really????? No double standards in all this????

originally posted by: jrod
She did not share confidential information like classified DoD plans, images, ect. with those with no business seeing them, but guess who did?

How do you know... She was illegally operating outside of official channels. As Sec of State, she is not authorized to have a private server. All her Sec of State must be done through official channels.

BTW who did Trump show anything? Did they read it, copy it, or write down details? Who are these people and which document(s) are you talking about?

As comes as a surprise to no one, Nauta's lawyer is attempting to delay Friday's CIPA hearing. Among the reasons Woodward gave for needing a delay is that he hasn't filed the paperwork to get his interim security clearance. Mind you, Woodward has had the paperwork for over three weeks.

The DOJ has already filed their rebuttal. Time to see how biased Cannon is going to be in this case.

a reply to: Threadbare

Why would allowing a client time be biased for any judge?

originally posted by: Threadbare
As comes as a surprise to no one, Nauta's lawyer is attempting to delay Friday's CIPA hearing. Among the reasons Woodward gave for needing a delay is that he hasn't filed the paperwork to get his interim security clearance. Mind you, Woodward has had the paperwork for over three weeks.

The DOJ has already filed their rebuttal. Time to see how biased Cannon is going to be in this case.

Pesky judges and their due process notions!

Reply to Threadbare

How long does the security clearance process take?
The security clearance process takes an average of three to four months to complete but can take up to a full year to complete depending on your background. For example, in some cases information about your finances, family members or foreign contacts requires in-depth verification which can lead to delays in the security process.

link

a reply to: matafuchs

There's no reason to delay the hearing. The hearing is pretty much going over CIPA protocols. No major decisions are going to be made, but it is an important step in allowing classified discovery to happen.

a reply to: Threadbare

Says....you? Are you actively working this case?

a reply to: Threadbare

If someone is not prepared they ask for more time like this case. In Trumps case it should be tried and over as soon as possible so it does not interfere with election cycles which is what they are doing in his case. All over the country.